Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: LinkedIn-excluded scope, freshness floor, error-not-empty-success semantics, and the fact that failed lookups are not billed. That billing and error-shape disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose before scope and edge cases, and each sentence carries information. The em-dash-heavy middle clause is slightly dense, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does name the extra returned fields (`raw_title`, `boards`) plus the failure mode. It stops short of describing the overall response shape or the deprecated-header migration details, so it is strong but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only the deprecated `plane_api_key` is documented), so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that `company_id`/`req_key` are the pair carried on `search_jobs` rows, but says nothing about `idempotency_key` or the type/format of `req_key`, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('one open role's detail') and the exact addressing scheme (`company_id` + `req_key`). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings `search_jobs` and `get_open_reqs`, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: call this when you already hold an identifier for a role, rather than 're-pulling the whole company with get_open_reqs'. It also names a fallback behavior (no key -> signup link), leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.